Do you ever feel some reluctance at the idea of exploring 9/11? Do you perhaps fear the
paradigm shift it could lead you through? What
if it offered you a radically fresh, bold and optimistic
perspective on the whole
world? Welcome to what is arguably the easiest point of entry
into 9/11!

Do you know that late in the day of 9/11, in the World Trade Center, apart from the
twin towers, a third skyscraper disintegrated?
If you do, would you care to recall when you learned about it? If you do not remember
it from the day of 9/11 itself, don't worry, for very few people do. Indeed, the
first oddity of this episode of 9/11 is that memory works
in reverse: as time goes by, people do not forget
it, but instead become cognizant of it. Anyway, welcome to Building 7 before 9/11:

Since Building 7 was barely half the size of the twin towers, you may find it
natural that the twin towers' explosions would destroy it as some kind of collateral
damage. Yet it was a very large skyscraper in its own right. With 47 floors, it
would have been a landmark in most metropolitan
areas:

Besides, the twin towers’ destruction did not inflict catastrophic structural
damage on Building
7. Behold its picture, engulfed by the powder generated by the North tower’s destruction:

However, the U.S. government’s relevant technical report asserts that the North
tower’s disintegration planted the seeds of Building 7’s
destruction. You
may recall that many members of the North tower's steel frame were expelled away
with high momentum. Some hit Building 7 and—according to the official report—ignited
office fires. These fires—and
nothing but these fires, contrary to rumors that are still propagated on
the internet—eventually destroyed the whole skyscraper seven hours
later, essentially breaking its steel frame into linear
segments and dropping them into its own footprint.
Behold the resulting amazingly well-centered
pyramid of debris:

This is the first and only time in history that a steel-framed
high-rise has been unintentionally brought down. The destruction itself took only
a few seconds, as seen on CBS later that evening:

Anchorman Dan Rather’s unexpected comparison with some "old building deliberately destroyed
by well-placed dynamite to knock it down" calls for a reality check. Behold a side-by-side
video comparison of Building 7's failure with a controlled demolition. A controlled
demolition is a process in which a team of experts—specialized
engineers and support personnel—studies the construction and condition of a steel-framed
skyscraper, designs the demolition, places a multitude of calibrated explosive charges at key
spots, and detonates them in a pre-calculated sequence. To provide a rough
overview, first the basement columns
are blown up. The whole construction suddenly misses its support and accelerates
downward. Before the next floor hits
the foundation, another round of charges cuts its own support columns, and so on.
The
whole building appears to fall straight down as if the Earth suddenly gave way underneath
it:

Thevideo match between Building 7 and this
controlled demolition is striking. Nevertheless,
the above-mentioned official report includes a demonstration that Building 7
could not have been demolished.
Instead, it explains that the internal fires suddenly initiated
a chain of structural
ruptures inside the skyscraper while hardly affecting its envelope, hence the misleading
impression the unaware observer gathers from the video evidence. The U.S. experts
produced a video illustration of their simulation:

Inconsistencies between this model and the reality
are obvious even without the benefit of a side-by-side
comparison:

the top deforms and folds inward before falling, especially the—least visible—top
left back corner

once the model's façade starts to move down, it accelerates much slower than
in reality

the envelope tilts to the right as it goes down

the simulation offers less than 2 seconds of the roofline’s fall, whereas
the actual videos show over 6 seconds

should the simulation last longer, the deformation and the tilt would likely
get worse, further stressing the mismatch with the video evidence

Let us recapitulate:

on the day of 9/11, in the World Trade Center, a third skyscraper, apart
from the twin towers, experienced a sudden disintegration

this catastrophe was—as determined by U.S. scientists and engineers—the unfortunate consequence
of office fires stemming from the violent projection of large pieces of steel
from the North tower into this building

the U.S. report came up with a video reconstruction
of the event

this model matches the actual video evidence poorly, whereas the model of a controlled
demolition matches it very well

through a once-in-history serendipity, this
unique event in the annals of civil engineering happened at the same place and on the same day as another unique
event of a completely different nature: the largest and most memorable terror
attacks ever

little effort was made to bring the above to the public's attention

This leads us to your first 9/11 action items:

one important element in the official 9/11 narrative—the video representation
of Building 7's destruction—does not make sense

even though the official 9/11 account is—as far as you know at this point—true,
this discrepancy legitimizes its questioning

accordingly, from now on, when some leader or organization summarily
ridicules
or demonizes 9/11 truth-seekers, kindly and firmly let her/him/it know that this
is unbecoming because they have a point

mistrust leaders who claim to
be knowledgeable about 9/11 but are
uncomfortable with this page

You will reasonably agree that the exercise you just went through raises a highly
intriguing epistemological conundrum:

the above information is available, straightforward and important

any TV network could easily assemble it into a 5 to 10 minute segment that
would be highly educational, very simple, and well received

yet not a single one, anywhere in the world, has done that

this raises the puzzling question as to how all
these many TV producers could
somehow overlook such a straightforward, extraordinary, valuable, unemotional, and inexpensive
documentary, featuring "the little office fire that could" outsmart the sharpest
demolition engineers in the world

the interest of solving this enigma cannot be overestimated, for it could
be the symptom of a bigger lapse in the information "we the people of the world"
get

The first step toward solving a problem is usually to
gather relevant information. In this case, one possible
avenue is to bring the above pictures and videos to the attention of a significant
sample of TV producers worldwide and ask them why they missed what appeared to be
a once-in-a-career opportunity. Another one is to analyze the shortcomings
of Building 7’s official simulation and the amazing resemblance
between Building
7’s destruction and a controlled demolition. The latter carries the advantage of
potentially adding important information that would narrow down
the former’s context.
Accordingly, whenever you are comfortable with this page's conclusions, consider
a technical excursion in layman's terms into Building 7's destruction.